The Churchâ??s Changing Position On Birth Control

[katherine the great]

This is where some of you lose me. If you have a child who has a medical condition that costs a thousand dollars a month out of your pocket to keep your child healthy (or even alive), your income is two thousand dollars a month and you already have three children to support, what do you do? Do you go ahead and have another child as you are going deeper and deeper into debt or do you wait until you feel your financial situation is more manageable before you bring another child into the world? Is there anyone on this board who would simply give their child a Priesthood blessing and cease their expensive medical care or life support and wait for their child to die (or ask for a miracle?) I really don' t see how some of you are so cut and dried in your opinions on this matter. I would bet money (if I were a betting woman) that those of you who are so set in your opinions have never had a disease ridden child.

[Traela]

Yes, JS said to rely on the Priesthood more than medicine. So did BY. But keep in mind, this was at a time when medicine was little more than a collection of folk remedies whose benefits were dubious at best. When medicine evolved into an actual science, BY actively requested that members go east to be trained at medical schools. I really doubt he would have done this if we were to rely ONLY on the priesthood. The two should go hand-in-hand, just like faith and works.

To use a personal example, my son is currently undergoing testing to see if he has a rare, extremely serious, genetic disorder. If he doesn't have it, it will be a miracle. If he does, and he survives even to adulthood, it will also be a miracle. Either way, I am very, very aware that his life is in the Lord's hands. However, it is my duty to do everything *I* can do to keep him alive and reasonably healthy. And yes, it most likely will be very expensive.

[katherine the great]

To use a personal example, my son is currently undergoing testing to see if he has a rare, extremely serious, genetic disorder. If he doesn't have it, it will be a miracle.

I will pray for a miracle for you.

[LDSToronto]

No, "we" have not. It takes at least 2.1 children to multiply by one. Only if a couple (or, more specifically, a woman) has more than two children, i.e., three or more, since children don't come in fractional packs, can they "multiply".

This is the stupidest thing I've ever heard on this subject. You have just pegged all those with less than 3 kids as sinners.

H.

[Log]

This is the stupidest thing I've ever heard on this subject. You have just pegged all those with less than 3 kids as sinners.

H.

hmm. This really isn't a counter-argument, is it?

[ttribe]

This is the stupidest thing I've ever heard on this subject. You have just pegged all those with less than 3 kids as sinners.

H.

Ding, ding ding! We have a winner (and a pattern)!

[LeSellers]

This is the stupidest thing I've ever heard on this subject.

No, yours was the stupidest thing said on the subject.

You have just pegged all those with less than 3 kids as sinners.

I said no such thing.

Do you stay up nights looking for reasons to be offended?

Lehi

[LeSellers]

This is the stupidest thing I've ever heard on this subject. You have just pegged all those with less than 3 kids as sinners.

Ding, ding ding! We have a winner (and a pattern)!

We have neither.

What we do have is someone trying to be offended when

1. No offense was intended
   
2. The quotation was taken out of its context.
   

There's a lot of that going around.

Lehi

[ttribe]

Ding, ding ding! We have a winner (and a pattern)!We have neither.

What we do have is someone trying to be offended when

1. No offense was intended
   
2. The quotation was taken out of its context.
   

There's a lot of that going around.

Lehi

Okay, now that Lehi is being defensive again, let's address the original statement. It's pretty clear that Lehi was referring to a cultural problem that the U.S. has; namely, that in order for a culture to survive, existing members of that culture must produce 2.1 children (rounded to 3 for obvious reasons). What Lehi seems to have no problem doing is using "scriptural language" (in this case, the command to "multiply and replenish the earth" to drive home his point. That's where others (myself included) get hung up. Nevertheless, for some reason he can't seem to see the world through anyone else's eyes and see why offense might be taken, even if (as he says) none was intended.

BTW, I reject the idea that anyone it is TRYING to be offended. It's an absurd assertion and is a clear effort to abdicate responsibility as a communicator.

[LDSToronto]

No, yours was the stupidest thing said on the subject.

I said no such thing.

Do you stay up nights looking for reasons to be offended?

Lehi

Dude, I wasn't offended. I disagree with you so strongly that I used the strongest possible language that I felt comfortable using. You inferred that anyone that had less than 3 kids was breaking a commandment to multiply and replenish the earth. Let me show you:

You said:

It takes at least 2.1 children to multiply by one.

By doing so, you have set up the criteria by which the command 'multiply and replenish' is judged.

You then said:

Only if a couple (or, more specifically, a woman) has more than two children, i.e., three or more, since children don't come in fractional packs, can they "multiply".

1) A couple can only multiply if they have three or more children

2) If a couple has multiplied they have obeyed the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth

3) If a couple has decided to have 2 or less children, they have not multiplied

4) A couple that has not multiplied has broken the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth

5) A couple that has broken a commandment is a couple that consists of two sinners

Thus, all couples that have decided to have 2 or less children are sinners. According to what you stated on this discussion board.

Lehi, can you shed some light on what you really meant, if this is not what you really meant?

H.

[Log]

1) A couple can only multiply if they have three or more children

2) If a couple has multiplied they have obeyed the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth

3) If a couple has decided to have 2 or less children, they have not multiplied

4) A couple that has not multiplied has broken the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth

5) A couple that has broken a commandment is a couple that consists of two sinners

Thus, all couples that have decided to have 2 or less children are sinners. According to what you stated on this discussion board.

Lehi, can you shed some light on what you really meant, if this is not what you really meant?

H.

So, which propositions do you disagree with, and why? Wouldn't that be better than calling something "stupid"?

[LeSellers]

You inferred ...

No, you inferred. You meant to say that I "implied". I did not imply any such thing. The only way you could prove I did would be to produce irrefutable evidence of your ability to read my mind.

The above comment demonstrates that I apply the same measurement to both LDSs and non-LDSs. (Re: my discussion with Billy on this precise subject.)

... that anyone that had less than 3 kids was breaking a commandment to multiply and replenish the earth. Let me show you:

You said:

By doing so, you have set up the criteria by which the command 'multiply and replenish' is judged.

No, I said that one cannot be multiplying unless he has at least three children. But there are many reasons a couple may not have three (or any other number of children.

You might want to consider that one of our sons married a woman who cannot have children irrespective of how badly she wants them (and she does). It is not her choice, but it is the fact. I am not accusing them of not multiplying.

You then said:

1) A couple can only multiply if they have three or more children

2) If a couple has multiplied they have obeyed the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth

3) If a couple has decided to have 2 or less children, they have not multiplied

4) A couple that has not multiplied has broken the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth

5) A couple that has broken a commandment is a couple that consists of two sinners

I do not see it that way, but what do I know? I only wrote it.

Thus, all couples that have decided to have 2 or less children are sinners. According to what you stated on this discussion board.

Again, your logic; not what I said.

My only affirmative statements on this issue are:

1. It is not more expensive to raise children today than it was in times past (inflation and others destructive governmental forces taken into account). (I have amended this slightly by acknowledging that medical care is more expensive — due largely to governmental interference.)
   
2. It is not too expensive to raise a large family (or to have a single child, which is what I hear from many people, albeit rarely from LDSs). The choice to raise a large family or not demonstrates how much one values children, or, more precisely, the next child: it is slightly less (if choosing not to have him) or more (when opting to multiply and replenish the Earth) than the costs (not all of which are financial) avoided by or incurred in having that child.
   

Please show me where I have said anything else.

Lehi

[busybee]

You want to escalate this into a war?

Okeh. I CFR that it is

1. More expensive today to raise children than it has been in the past (controlled for both inflation and relative standard of living, both of which are implied in the first claim).
   
2. Too expensive to have a child or large family today.
   

.

You folks (need I name names?) made the claim, so you all can provide the data.

Lehi

Just wondering? What happened to "using wisdom in all things"?

We have a family in our unit with 7 children. Living in social housing, on social welfare etc and the mother saying she will continue to have children as long as Heavenly Father continues to send them. News Flash!! As long as she/ we continue to particpate in the activities which result in children, we will continue to have them. He will not work against laws which He has created. Planning our families, with the guidance of the Lord, is using wisdom.

[LDSMusic483]

No, you inferred. You meant to say that I "implied". I did not imply any such thing. The only way you could prove I did would be to produce irrefutable evidecne of your ability to read my mind.

Lehi

A MIS-SPELLED WORD! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAH

[busybee]

I never used the word doctrine, you'll need to get that from Lehi. I just think it's an incorrect practice to claim lack of money as a reason to stop having kids.

So you think it's fine for a family to be living on welfare and to still continue to have bring children into these circumstances??

[LDSMusic483]

News Flash!! As long as she/ we continue to particpate in the activities which result in children, we will continue to have them. He will not work against laws which He has created.

Tell that to all the women who can't have them, or it takes a long time to.

[busybee]

Tell that to all the women who can't have them, or it takes a long time to.

The discussion is about limiting the number of children we have because of financial reasons. Obviously if we're "limiting" the number we are able to have them, so your comment, while true, is not relevant to this discussion.

edited to correct spelling mistake. Heaven forbid one should slip through!!!

[bluebell]

Tell that to all the women who can't have them, or it takes a long time to.

There are natural laws that govern why we can't have children as much as they govern why we can. Many women can't have children due to these 'natural laws' that God does not choose to work against for whatever reason.

I think the number of babies born to child abusers and child neglectors supports busybee's assertion that God most usually works within the laws that He has created, even if the end result is not what He wants it to be.

[LeSellers]

A MIS-SPELLED WORD! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAH

True, thank you. I will correct it.

Lehi

[LDSMusic483]

There are natural laws that govern why we can't have children as much as they govern why we can. Many women can't have children due to these 'natural laws' that God does not choose to work against for whatever reason.

I think the number of babies born to child abusers and child neglectors supports busybee's assertion that God most usually works within the laws that He has created, even if the end result is not what He wants it to be.

Indeed, but not every time that the deed is done is a child conceived, even when all things are normal. God has a reasoning and a purpose for the children He sends, when He sends them, and to whom they are sent.

[LeSellers]

Just wondering? What happened to "using wisdom in all things"?

Nothing, since it does not apply here.

I have not said, nor have I implied, that an individual person cannot or should not use all sorts of criteria in deciding to have a(nother) child.

My argument has been, from the beginning, that it is not "too expensive to have a child", making the point that, if people are willing to, all sorts of things an happen, including living on $10,000/year with a large family. [sarcasm]But one cannot do so if he expects to live the now mandatory middle class lifestyle I hear plays a part of the Temple recommend interview nowadays. [/sarcasm]

We have a family in our unit with 7 children. Living in social housing, on social welfare etc and the mother saying she will continue to have children as long as Heavenly Father continues to send them. News Flash!! As long as she/ we continue to particpate in the activities which result in children, we will continue to have them. He will not work against laws which He has created. Planning our families, with the guidance of the Lord, is using wisdom.

You have not read my messages on the gross interference of government is such matters.

However, this family should seriously reconsider their lifestyle, and the burden they foist onto the shoulders of others. I knew such a family, too, and the worst part of it was that they only multiplied, but they did not multiply the Kingdom, since many of their children fell (or jumped) away from the Church and the Gospel.

Shuffling the costs of having the next child onto others (especially by means of the coercion of taxation) is immoral. I know there are circumstances that make this mandatory in some cases, but the lifestyle of doing so is destructive.

My position remains unchanged: It is erroneous to say that it is more expensive to raise children today than in the past, and it is not too expensive to have children today.

Lehi

[ttribe]

I'll ask again, since I was ignored before:

My position remains unchanged: It is erroneous to say that it is more expensive to raise children today than in the past,

Please provide some supporting calculations and information in support of this assertion.

...and it is not too expensive to have children today.

Who here said it was?

[busybee]

Nothing, since it does not apply here.

I have not said, nor have I implied, that an individual person cannot or should not use all sorts of criteria in deciding to have a(nother) child.

My argument has been, from the beginning, that it is not "too expensive to have a child", making the point that, if people are willing to, all sorts of things an happen, including living on $10,000/year with a large family. [sarcasm]But one cannot do so if he expects to live the now mandatory middle class lifestyle I hear plays a part of the Temple recommend interview nowadays. [/sarcasm]

You have not read my messages on the gross interference of government is such matters.

However, this family should seriously reconsider their lifestyle, and the burden they foist onto the shoulders of others. I knew such a family, too, and the worst part of it was that they only multiplied, but they did not multiply the Kingdom, since many of their children fell (or jumped) away from the Church and the Gospel.

Shuffling the costs of having the next child onto others (especially by means of the coercion of taxation) is immoral. I know there are circumstances that make this mandatory in some cases, but the lifestyle of doing so is destructive.

My position remains unchanged: It is erroneous to say that it is more expensive to raise children today than in the past, and it is not too expensive to have children today.

Lehi

I should imagine it depends where in the world you live. In some countries you really could not say that it costs the same or less to raise a child today than it did in the 60's for eg. Different countries have different economies. I live in one of the most expensive countries in the world. I'm seriously glad I don't have to raise a family today.

[ttribe]

I should imagine it depends where in the world you live. In some countries you really could not say that it costs the same or less to raise a child today than it did in the 60's for eg. Different countries have different economies. I live in one of the most expensive countries in the world. I'm seriously glad I don't have to raise a family today.

This has the potential to be a very good point. Lehi, consider this a request for clarification to your assertion - where does it not cost more?

[busybee]

Nothing, since it does not apply here.

I have not said, nor have I implied, that an individual person cannot or should not use all sorts of criteria in deciding to have a(nother) child.

My argument has been, from the beginning, that it is not "too expensive to have a child", making the point that, if people are willing to, all sorts of things an happen, including living on $10,000/year with a large family. [sarcasm]But one cannot do so if he expects to live the now mandatory middle class lifestyle I hear plays a part of the Temple recommend interview nowadays. [/sarcasm]

You have not read my messages on the gross interference of government is such matters.

However, this family should seriously reconsider their lifestyle, and the burden they foist onto the shoulders of others. I knew such a family, too, and the worst part of it was that they only multiplied, but they did not multiply the Kingdom, since many of their children fell (or jumped) away from the Church and the Gospel.

Shuffling the costs of having the next child onto others (especially by means of the coercion of taxation) is immoral. I know there are circumstances that make this mandatory in some cases, but the lifestyle of doing so is destructive.

My position remains unchanged: It is erroneous to say that it is more expensive to raise children today than in the past, and it is not too expensive to have children today.

Lehi

So you agree that this family should not continue to multiply under the present circumstances?